yeah in reality this whole thing just seems like a mess nobody would want to tackle. It's a cool concept for something like emergency housing during a disaster...but not really into it as a long term option

You can’t pour concrete in Austin without the city inspecting the service lines you are pouring over and comparing it to your submitted plans. Then they need to inspect again after your concrete is poured.

They also need to inspect plumbing, framing, and electrical before you cover the walls.

They need to inspect everything again before they issue a certificate of occupancy.

You can look all this up on the city’s development services’ website.

Just because something can be built in 24 hours doesn’t mean it’s exempt from red tape. If the city finds out you didn’t follow the law they will ask you to deconstruct the improvement and try again once you have an approved permit application. They can fine you every day that you are out of compliance.

You can’t pour concrete in Austin without the city inspecting the service lines you are pouring over and comparing it to your submitted plans. Then they need to inspect again after your concrete is poured.

Right, so this is inspected before the walls go up.

They also need to inspect plumbing, framing, and electrical before you cover the walls.

Right, so this is inspected after the framing goes up.

They need to inspect everything again before they issue a certificate of occupancy.

Fine, let them inspect everything they've inspected and given the go-ahead on. This is standard operation procedure.

You can look all this up on the city’s development services’ website.

I don't live in Austin.

Just because something can be built in 24 hours doesn’t mean it’s exempt from red tape.

I never said it was. How does 3d printing concrete walls impact inspections anymore than pouring concrete walls in forms would, or standard stick frames? You build in logical steps and don't proceed until appropriate.

Because a "wall" in stick frame construction is built in 3 phases: first framing, then plumbing/electric/possibly hvac/possibly insulation inside the wall cavity, and finally covering using sheetrock or whatever other decorative covering you want.

With a 3d printed wall, framing and covering occur at the same time leaving no separate step for the inside-the-cavity stuff. So...there isn't anything inside the wall cavity at all? In which case I would suppose you'd have exposed plumbing and electric and no insulation? Exposed electric sounds bad. Wireless light switches, no outlets in walls? Exposed water supply lines, exposed ductwork I guess? If you have more details, please share.

Reductions in cost are still reductions. Though I do agree with you there are many ways to build a house that could be used today (likely already in the same ballpark price). I guess just another option?

I've associated with ICON through our time in the Impact Hub Affordability Accelerator, so I've had time to ask them questions a lot people have. This is what I remember and shouldn't be taken as ICON's stance though:

The tiny house is the first product they are developing. I remember them saying there considering larger buildings like townhomes, four-plexes, etc for more urban environments.

They acknowledge how the price of land affects the market value.

As someone who wants the City to allow more people to live in Austin, lower construction costs will help make the city more affordable. Even after land costs are divided between multiple units (as opposed to building only one house on an expensive lot), construction costs for stick-frame buildings are still around $120-150 per square foot.

Based on the figures from this article, their construction costs are close to $15 per square foot. This means a ~1,000 sq ft house would go from $150,000 in construction costs to $15,000.

Won't the city just outlaw these as well or relegate them to very specific areas? The city banned mobile homes outside of mobile home parks, because they're cheap and they're worried they will drive down property prices for surrounding homes. How is this different other than it is constructed on site instead of in a factory? They will still lower surrounding property value.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for ripping up zoning laws in the city and allowing folks to do what they want with their land, but I don't see how the city is gonna let this fly if they don't let existing forms of affordable housing be placed on lots in the city.

Mobile homes are banned because they are only required to meet HUD standards which are woefully crappier than IBC code. The caveat here being that MODULAR homes which meet IBC code standards are perfectly acceptable. It's a fine distinction.

bullshit. Just the concrete slab is at least $10K of that.$10/s.f. for slab on grade is almost impossible to come by anymore. $14/s.f. is doable all day. Get out your calculator and get back to me after you crunch some real numbers.

We've known how to build much better and cheaper houses for over 50 years. The only thing stopping it is the NIMBY factor and special interest groups in the current industry. Current owners don't want anyone to build cheaper houses nearby, even if they are better than the full price models. The construction industry don't want costs to go down or new competition. The government doesn't want property tax assessments to go down. Inspection departments don't want anything to intrude on their fiefdoms or make them think about anything new.

Frank Lloyd Wright worked on his Usonian Automatic House back in the 1930's. This was low price prefab type stuff. Like many of his concepts, he never really finished out the process, but the idea was valid.

Prefab housing could be not only cheaper, but a lot better than built on site. It could be anything from things like prebuilt walls to whole rooms. Over the years, a few things like prefab roof trusses and prefab windows have crept in, but progress has been slow.

I'm not saying 3D printing houses is a bad idea, but the obstacles it faces are social, not practical.

found the person that has never really gone down the prefab road... Labour is cheap in Texas, and we can build year-round with very little weather effect. Prefab/modular is rarely cheaper assuming a same level of quality/efficiency for site-built. Believe me. I've tried.

seeing that I've been watching "progress" on thos housr via social media for the past three or so weeks... 24 hours is utter bullshit. Ty Pennington can't even do a makeover in 24 hours (without a LOT of post pro editing...)

Would it really be that cheap after including plumbing, hvac, and electrical? Would something like this be allowed in austin given our energy codes? Very curious! The house in the pic is a beautiful design.

Austin Building Codes are the International Residential Code. As are MOST municipalities in the country (at this point in time.) Ain't no thang really. You just have to know the ins and outs. It's not rocket surgery.

That's not building code though. That's zoning or covenants. Building code is not prescriptive. As long as you can meet the minimums of the code it will fly. This project is permitted and has to pass all COA inspections and zoning.

There are actual homeless folks in Austin who just fell way way down on their luck. Of course if we give them homes, every town around will send their homeless here and pretend they are being really compassionate.

I don't imagine that a lot of houses like this would be given away. They'd either be rented at a rate affordable on min wage or offered on good mortgage terms to people capable of working entry level jobs. $10k, $20k to own a home is fantastic. Any built in Austin would be snapped up quickly if there were no limitations on who can purchase. The "handouts" would/should be either need-based limitations or free rent for some number of months until a person can stand on their own two feet.

Should also note that while this kind of development is a step in the right direction, getting out of the single-family mindset and building much more small mixed use retail/apartments would do more for improving the housing shortage and pull in more tax revenue at the same time. Filling lots with a few of these printed homes won't create more jobs, spending, or tax revenue.

Charging a cheap rate for a new kind of home will probably eliminate a lot of the problems. I can see this being a huge help to a single mother down on her luck, trying to make it all work on a McDonald's Salary, but the professional addict hobo who wouldn't take care of his home is not really targeted by 'cheap rent.'

I love the single-family mindset. I get your point that cramming us together has a lot of advantages for planning and perhaps taxes, but I like a yard with a dog. I like a family fixing up their home and enjoying the trees they plant, or gardening, or just playing in the grass. Yes, that means Austin is sprawling and homes near the city are stupid expensive. So you're not wrong.

Yard and dog are great. I recently bought a home like that in a small Hill country town. But those do not make for a sustainable or livable urban environment under the population growth the cities of Central Texas are dealing with. (Austin pop growth is declining and San Antonio increasing iirc). Jane Jacobs' books explain why this kind of development is more cost effective and produces stronger communities, if you're interested.

In my likely biased opinion, it would be better if Austin and San Antonio focused on increasing tax revenue through better urban planning practices so local/state governments can devote more money to financing public transit from outlying areas and decrease spending on roads, parking lots, traffic cops, etc. I would selfishly love to see a subway under 35 from SA to ATX, with stops in the cities in between. I no longer get to vote on that proposal though :)

It's a tongue in cheek South Park Reference that basically says what you described

Handouts inspire hands out.

Basically I'm saying that yes, in terms of a single city, increasing help to the homeless is only going to draw in more homeless from other areas for that help, likely more than the number actually helped.

I wish it could work differently but unfortunately that's why no one can ever agree on this topic, how exactly do you help individuals without helping everyone? It's just really hard for any good solution

and I thought trucking would be the first industry to go under due to robots. Home building is the economic engine that drives america the most over the last 70 years, maybe even longer. Hello great depression, when farm labor got replaced by tractors

There was a time when people looked at technology as a way to remove labor as a requirement and free people up to do hobbies and luxury activities. "Man, imagine if a robot could run an entire farm. Food wouldn't have to cost money!"

Current culture doesn't support that thinking. A man's only worth is his job.

You're wise to be concerned. Consume less stuff. Save. Build some stability. And learn more than one skill.

These advancements are awesome though they do cause problems. Food is so plentiful, and it saved more than the depression cost. Amazon put a lot of stores out of business, but you can get a good deal on almost anything, no matter where in America you happen to live.

People able to get a cheap, safe home would screw a lot of established companies, but most of the profit in that didn't really trickle down to the rest of us.

In 3 links it went from the original quote of "1.6 billion who lack adequate, secure and affordable shelter" to "1 billion who lack shelter". Amazing how fast information gets sensationalized and falsified.